The claim that President Donald Trump allegedly had threatened to withdraw the United States of America from NATO attracted considerable media attention last month. President Biden condemned the idea, as did many other security and defence experts. In the resulting media melee, even the authenticity of the story was lost.
What the story did highlight was the inadequate amount that some European nations have been spending on their own defence.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was established in 1949 as a collective security agreement. Following the Second World War, it was designed to ensure peace in Europe and avoid the terrible wars that had blighted the first half of the 20th century.
Comprising 29 European nations and two North American countries, the Brussels-headquartered NATO operates on funds provided by its members.
Broken Promises
Some years ago, the NATO members agreed to provide 2 per cent of GDP to defence expenditure. That target has not been achieved by most of them.
Interestingly, the nations closest to Russia have the highest expenditure. According to 2023 data, Poland (3.9 per cent) leads the way from Greece (3.01), Estonia (2.73), Lithuania (2.54), Finland (2.45), Romania (2.44), Hungary (2.43) and Slovakia (2.03).
France expended just 1.9 per cent of GDP, while Germany lagged at 1.57 per cent. The UK spent 2.07 per cent. Canada had one of the lowest expenditures at just 1.38 per cent.
These figures stand in stark contrast to the 3.49 per cent of GDP expended by the US.
Obviously smitten by the revelations, NATO head, Jens Stoltenberg said that the number of European nations reaching the threshold of 2 per cent of GDP had risen recently from 11 to 20 of the 31 member organisations.
It is doubtful that if re-elected, Mr Trump would withdraw from NATO, but his alleged remarks have shone the spotlight on the issue. With Russia threatening Ukraine, attention to European defences is paramount.
Inadequate
The discussion has parallels in Australia where a reported dispute has broken out between the defence minister, Richard Marles, and his department.
Rumours of differences have been circulating for some time, but the matter came to a head with leaks of a very tense discussion between the minister, the secretary of his department, the chief of the defence force and other senior military leaders.
The crux of the dispute is the usefulness of some of the military equipment ordered by defence and the quantum of funds available.
There is a widespread view that Mr Marles has been rebuffed by the Expenditure Review Committee of Cabinet in his quest for most defence expenditure.
When the Abbott government established the figure of 2 per cent of GDP for defence expenditure, it was a floor, not a ceiling. But it has often been treated as the latter.
In an increasingly dangerous region, 2 per cent of GDP is grossly inadequate. Australia’s defence expenditure should be closer to 3 per cent of GDP.
The danger, however, is that the Albanese government is not committed to the expenditure required.
To date, the foreign minister seems more attracted to appeasement than the hard-headed assessment of the threats to Australia, especially from the Chinese Communist Party.
Mr Marles has also been on record as displaying sympathy towards the Beijing regime. He had little to say about the Chinese establishing an upgraded presence in Timor-Leste.
The dispute with the defence leadership is worrying. Defence can be a cumbersome department, unable to display the nimbleness required for a rapidly changing strategic situation, and wedded to projects whose usefulness has passed, but it and the minister should be on the same page.
Given Australia’s reliance on the US for our defence and security, perhaps the government should heed Mr Trump’s advice.
___
Republished with thanks to the Hon. Kevin Andrews. Image courtesy of Pixabay.
How Much for a Nation’s Defence?
Kevin Andrews
8 May 2024
2.3 MINS
The claim that President Donald Trump allegedly had threatened to withdraw the United States of America from NATO attracted considerable media attention last month. President Biden condemned the idea, as did many other security and defence experts. In the resulting media melee, even the authenticity of the story was lost.
What the story did highlight was the inadequate amount that some European nations have been spending on their own defence.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was established in 1949 as a collective security agreement. Following the Second World War, it was designed to ensure peace in Europe and avoid the terrible wars that had blighted the first half of the 20th century.
Comprising 29 European nations and two North American countries, the Brussels-headquartered NATO operates on funds provided by its members.
Broken Promises
Some years ago, the NATO members agreed to provide 2 per cent of GDP to defence expenditure. That target has not been achieved by most of them.
Interestingly, the nations closest to Russia have the highest expenditure. According to 2023 data, Poland (3.9 per cent) leads the way from Greece (3.01), Estonia (2.73), Lithuania (2.54), Finland (2.45), Romania (2.44), Hungary (2.43) and Slovakia (2.03).
France expended just 1.9 per cent of GDP, while Germany lagged at 1.57 per cent. The UK spent 2.07 per cent. Canada had one of the lowest expenditures at just 1.38 per cent.
These figures stand in stark contrast to the 3.49 per cent of GDP expended by the US.
Obviously smitten by the revelations, NATO head, Jens Stoltenberg said that the number of European nations reaching the threshold of 2 per cent of GDP had risen recently from 11 to 20 of the 31 member organisations.
It is doubtful that if re-elected, Mr Trump would withdraw from NATO, but his alleged remarks have shone the spotlight on the issue. With Russia threatening Ukraine, attention to European defences is paramount.
Inadequate
The discussion has parallels in Australia where a reported dispute has broken out between the defence minister, Richard Marles, and his department.
Rumours of differences have been circulating for some time, but the matter came to a head with leaks of a very tense discussion between the minister, the secretary of his department, the chief of the defence force and other senior military leaders.
The crux of the dispute is the usefulness of some of the military equipment ordered by defence and the quantum of funds available.
There is a widespread view that Mr Marles has been rebuffed by the Expenditure Review Committee of Cabinet in his quest for most defence expenditure.
When the Abbott government established the figure of 2 per cent of GDP for defence expenditure, it was a floor, not a ceiling. But it has often been treated as the latter.
In an increasingly dangerous region, 2 per cent of GDP is grossly inadequate. Australia’s defence expenditure should be closer to 3 per cent of GDP.
The danger, however, is that the Albanese government is not committed to the expenditure required.
To date, the foreign minister seems more attracted to appeasement than the hard-headed assessment of the threats to Australia, especially from the Chinese Communist Party.
Mr Marles has also been on record as displaying sympathy towards the Beijing regime. He had little to say about the Chinese establishing an upgraded presence in Timor-Leste.
The dispute with the defence leadership is worrying. Defence can be a cumbersome department, unable to display the nimbleness required for a rapidly changing strategic situation, and wedded to projects whose usefulness has passed, but it and the minister should be on the same page.
Given Australia’s reliance on the US for our defence and security, perhaps the government should heed Mr Trump’s advice.
___
Republished with thanks to the Hon. Kevin Andrews. Image courtesy of Pixabay.
About the Author: Kevin Andrews
Australia / COMMENTARY / Safety & Security / World
SHARE >
We need your help. The continued existence of the Daily Declaration depends on the generosity of readers like you. Donate now. The Daily Declaration is committed to keeping our site free of advertising so we can stay independent and continue to stand for the truth.
Fake news and censorship make the work of the Canberra Declaration and our Christian news site the Daily Declaration more important than ever. Take a stand for family, faith, freedom, life, and truth. Support us as we shine a light in the darkness. Donate now.
Recent Articles:
Day 19: The Full Assurance of Hope
19 May 2024
3.2 MINS
The full assurance of hope acts as an “anchor” for our soul (Heb 6:19). Full assurance acts as a catalyst that sets our hearts immovably on Christ Jesus.
Day 18: Be Still and GO!
18 May 2024
3.6 MINS
For this National Day of Prayer, our focus is to be still before God (Psalm 46:10). Why? Because this will aid us in being more fruitful in making disciples of Jesus.
Digital ID Passed in Australian Parliament
17 May 2024
2 MINS
Australia passed its Digital ID bill in the Lower House yesterday, green-lighting the implementation of the legislative framework for the expansion of the Australian Government's Digital ID system.
The Babylon Bee’s Latest Crack at the Woke Jesus Goes Viral
17 May 2024
2.1 MINS
Woke Jesus is The Babylon Bee’s latest satirical crack at the Woke antichrist. The five-minute short film was released without apology last week, and it went viral with a bang. Since then, it’s been viewed on X over 2.8 million times and received 806,000 hits on YouTube.
Has The New York Times Always Been ‘Fake News’?
17 May 2024
3 MINS
Hunter Biden's laptop, the Wuhan lab leak and the Trump-Russia collusion hoax are just some of the fake news stories published by The New York Times in recent years. But actually, the Gray Lady's fling with fake news goes back almost a century.
The ABC is Shocked Catholic Doctrine Doesn’t Reflect the ABC Queer Instagram Feed
17 May 2024
4 MINS
The ABC has breathlessly reported that trans activists and Greens MPs don’t like Catholic doctrine. Journalists at the national broadcaster appear shocked that Catholics have not yet updated their 2000-year-old doctrine to better reflect the ABC Queer Instagram account.
U.K. Rejects WHO Pandemic Treaty as Critics Sound Alarm over ‘New World Order’
17 May 2024
3.4 MINS
The WHO pandemic treaty has suffered a major setback with the United Kingdom threatening to boycott the globalist initiative, citing threats to national sovereignty and undue influence by external powers like China.
Use your voice today to protect
Faith · Family · Freedom · Life
MOST POPULAR
ABOUT
The Daily Declaration is an Australian Christian news site dedicated to providing a voice for Christian values in the public square. Our vision is to see the revitalisation of our Judeo-Christian values for the common good. We are non-profit, independent, crowdfunded, and provide Christian news for a growing audience across Australia, Asia, and the South Pacific. The opinions of our contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of The Daily Declaration. Read More.
MOST COMMENTS
GOOD NEWS
HALL OF FAME
BROWSE TOPICS
BROWSE GENRES